Don’t write off the 4.3-liter V-6 that GMC offers in its new-for-2014 Sierra. While it is the base engine, it is genuinely fun to drive, as we discovered in the regular-cab short bed we tested. That this truck also has a redesigned exterior and interior, cool new features in the cabin, and elements of the 2014 model that make it easier to get work done just make the truck even better. But whether it is hauling cargo or out on the street, this is a truck that will surprise people.

It’s a shame we don’t get to drive more regular-cab pickups, as this is where the base engine of a truck really shines. Combine that with the inherent honesty of a single-row truck, especially this one, with its cloth seats and no-nonsense cabin, and the truck becomes instantly endearing. This isn’t some tarted-up cowboy truck; this is the layout that many people will use when they need their truck to do actual work on a regular basis. Yet as we discovered, this is a truck set up to do work, but driving it is no penalty.

As is the case with the rest of the 2014 Sierra line, styling is quite attractive, inside and out. While the cabin doesn’t have all the amenities of higher-trim-level Sierras, there were more features here that we would’ve expected. Our tester came with the EZ Lift and Lower tailgate, Stabilitrak with Trailer Sway Control, and a tire-pressure monitoring system. The driver seat and the windows were power operated. In addition, there were extra USB ports in the center console. There are plenty of connection points that would make it possible to get work done while on the road or on the way to the job site. Two pleasant surprises inside: the cabin was unbelievably quiet, and the top-notch cloth seats were pleasantly comfortable.

Starting up the Sierra, we were instantly reminded how far the 4.3-liter engine has come. At this point, just about the only thing this V-6 has in common with the previous V-6 is the displacement. The new V-6, which is part of GM’s EcoTec3 family of engines, has the same technologies as the 5.3- and 6.2-liter V-8s that make up the rest of the EcoTec3 line. This includes variable valve timing, direct injection, and Active Fuel Management. Here, it drops the six into V-4 mode, a process that was surprisingly seamless. The only way we could tell it was happening was when the indicator changed on the driver information screen in the gauge cluster. And while it didn’t happen all the time, the truck did drive in V-4 mode both on the highway and when towing. (It can tow as much as 7600 lb when properly equipped.)

These technologies make the new engine more efficient. But the truck is faster with the new engine as well. The previous cast-iron 4.3-liter put out 195 hp and 260 lb-ft of torque and was backed by a four-speed automatic. For 2014, the cast-aluminum 4.3-liter has a power output of 285 hp—a whopping 90-horsepower increase—and 305 lb-ft, and it’s backed by a six-speed automatic. We felt the difference immediately. Past iterations of the Sierra with the 4.3-liter six felt slow and unenthusiastic. That has all changed here. This Sierra felt quick, and was genuinely fun to drive. It was speedy at the track, too, where the SLE reached 60 mph in 7.4 seconds and finished the quarter mile in 15.8 seconds at 88.6 mph. The brakes were responsive without being jarring, and this Sierra only needed 130 feet to stop from 60 mph. Our biggest complaint: the ride was firm.

This Sierra wasn’t cheap, by any means. It was over $36,000 as tested. However, this truck gave us a taste of what people who need to get work done would experience in a regular-cab Sierra. This Sierra offers plenty of value without having to be apologetic for its engine. The truck’s layout and engine give the working guy a pickup that will get the job done yet is still fun to drive.

Either this writer was born wealthy and or married wealth because this article should have been written in one sentence: TOTALLY OVER PRICED. As are most GM products. Look at a CTS today. They're hitting the $60K mark. Unreal stuff here. How stupid can consumers be? A comparable equipped F-150 and Ram are thousands LESS. Hello...........................................

read your post. I'm with you on this one. GMC has always been just a little bit on the high side. Also depends on the good price you can get from your dealership. I'm currently putting together a new Silverado to order.The Dodge Ram is nice and they sell a lot of them. I think GMC / Chevrolet has a better resale value. The extra $ I spend on a Chevy I think I will get back on the resale value in a few years. I'm thinking I'd kick myself in the behind if I did go ahead and buy the Ram. I'm so used to setting behind the wheel of a Chevy truck; I pretty much buy a new Chevy truck every 8-10 years. My current 2003 Silverado (standard cab) is sweet and has only got 30,000 original miles on it. It will be coming up for sale in April 2014. Yes, it's time to upgrade my Silverado status.

Anyone defending the price on the 2014 GMC Sierra, has not done their homework. They are overpriced as of this moment, plain and simple. I actually really wanted to buy a 2014 GMC Sierra SLT crew cab with heated leather/steering. I tried a dozen different ways (i.e. SLE Z71, lesser rims, etc.) to make the pricing work for me, but it always came out $3k-$5k more expensive than the competition. I ended up buying a fully loaded 2014 RAM 1500 Sport Crew Cab with Hemi for about $5k less.

Now, to be fair, there are a couple important considerations: 1) This is a new model for GMC, and I think they did an awesome job. Despite what others say, I think it's a VERY nice truck. The leather seating inside the GMC is a cut above my RAM 1500. 2) It has been reported in several news outlets that GMC is having trouble sourcing parts. My gut tells me that they are overpriced right now, because GMC wants to slow demand.

Any way you slice it, as of today, you will get more truck for your buck with RAM. A Ford F150 FX4 Crew Cab with heated leather is better priced than both, but the interior is pedestrian at best, and the MyFord Touch system is horrible.

Everyone who is complaining about price is missing the point completely. Less than 5% of Sierra 1500s are built to these specs(because no one wants a $36k regular cab pickup). Almost all regular cab V6's are in Base(work truck) trim, where a 2wd will run you about $22,000. The point of this article was to highlight the new 4.3L V6 that is lightyears ahead of it's predecessor, not the value of a regular cab SLE 4x4! If you look hard enough you can find a new Sierra double cab SLE 4x4 Z71 MSRP $42,530 for around $35,800...which is a LOT of truck for the money IMO.

While I find the new GMC/Chevy trucks very desirable, I'm with other
folks on the price. $36,620? This is the 4WD model and according to the GMC website - the difference between 2WD and 4WD is almost $4,000. That seems AWFULLY steep.

2 Wheel DriveMSRP Starting at $27,170†

4 Wheel DriveMSRP Starting at $31,110†

However, when you go to SLE trim and pick the package here - it looks like GM did raise prices like the article stated a month or two ago. Before $2,000 cash back - I just priced one and it was $38,330.

Just checked and on the F150 the difference for 4WD is $3,425. WOW.

I will say, though, that my parents' new F150 despite being 2WD is still much more worth it than this truck. It's worth $3,400 more if you had to add 4WD. Theirs had sticker of $38,175 with 2WD and is an XLT 5.0 crew cab with the chrome package (18" rims, side step bars, etc), foglights, power seat, power pedals, and SYNC.

I'm liking it. The Sierra styling especially is growing on me. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be in the market for base work truck. I'm looking forward to the remodeled HD's though! For my work trucks, I go with an extended cab or even a crew cab for the interior tool storage space. Bed space isn't as important to me. If I needed a long bed though, the reg cab would be the way to go.

I really really wish you could get this engine in the new colorado instead of the 3.6. A 4.3 liter v6 with pushrods and more torque than power is my kind of truck engine. Oh well, maybe gmc will offer it further down the line.

The Sierra I had a few years ago was an extended cab, but I see quite a few regular cab Silverados, Sierras, Rams, and others. Some people say you cool off quicker with the A/C with these trucks because there is less hot air to have to cool off in the truck. I don't know if that's true, but if you have no more than 2 passengers, a long bed regular cab would work pretty well for many.

I've always had regular cab Z71s. The last one I bought, 2012, fully loaded was $26,000. It did have 3,000 miles from the dealer. I've already looked at the regular cabs- which are extremely hard to find fully loaded. Most are work trucks. I can buy a 2014 work truck with the V-6 for under $24,000 at my local dealer. The fully loaded Z71 was listed at $39,000. But, the dealer was going to sell it for less than $30,000. I still don't like the small screen in the regular cab. When I buy in a few years, I'll have to swap that out! I'm not sure about MT's pricing. But hey, I live in Arkansas!

No doubt this is a great truck, but it is too expensive for a pure work truck. Checking the Chevy website, a base 2014 Silverado is about $25K. That is much more reasonable for a work truck. Not sure what the extra 11 grand buys here, but if I were looking for a truck purely for work purposes, paying $36k for the GMC name is unacceptable.

This sucks for the price. My 2012 hemi ram reg cab with 3.92 gears with a lsd and 390 hp, Towing over 10000 pounds, satellite radio, all for $21000. I put my own leather kit in it and soon to by all carbon fiber accents inside for it. Goes to 60 in 5.7 secs before tuneing, and after a custom tune it got down to 5.3 secs. Still gets 20 to 22 mpg on the highway. Im sorry but GM needs to offer better packages then this. Offer a 6.2 with the best gears that they offer for $25000. The price of that 35000 dollar truck you can get a top of the line RT ram with a 8 speed trans, navigation, 4.10 gears, leather and all kinds of extras. Come on GM YOU CAN DO BETTER DAMMIT!!!!

First things first here..THIS truck IS NOT a base!! Its the SLE trim not base WT/sierra trim..

$36k is a lot of money for a REG cab truck, I agree..BUT this truck is far from basic!! Having chrome/color keyed everything, fogs, alloys, EZ lift tailgate, power everything, Stabilitrak, trailer-sway control, keyless, and 4X4!!

A BASE SIERRA 2WD WT can be bought for $25,000 right now..thats with the $2000 cash back on the hoods as of now..im sure you can easily wrangle one for under the $25,000 also..

all that aside, sounds like a solid offering from GMC. its one of the best looking reg cabs on the road imo. I like it a lot! the new 4.3 sounds like it wouldn't be a punishment going with the base engine for a change! imppressive

I bought an 08 F-150 STX regular cab with step-side bed and aluminum wheels with Michelin tires in December of 2008. It has the V-6 engine which has plenty of power with sliding rear window and towing package. It has the innovative small rear doors for extra storage space behind the seats. It is a very good looking truck and I paid $18600 for it. How can a base truck be $36000 ?

I don't know what everyone is complaining about, this is far from being a bare bones truck. Chrome, power everything, cloth seats, 4 wheel drive, carpet, aluminum wheels. This truck is more loaded than my 98 fully optioned Silverado minus the leather. And 15.8 in the 1/4 for a V6 4x4 truck is pretty impressive.

It can tow 7600 pounds... Says who? Chevy? They do not adhere to the SAE-J2807 guidelines, so no one knows what it can actually safely tow. If MT were responsible, they would point this out on every single article that references the "manufacturers" printed tow rating for any truck. These numbers are totally meaningless.

Buy a v6 Tacoma for $25k, get a far more reliable and robust truck and enjoy 10k left over. Since when is 7.6 seconds to 60ph fast, since when is cloth ever "top notch", and "surprising features" should not include tire pressure monitoring--other manufacturers include tire pressure monitoring standard (ahem, Toyota...)... And seriously, $36k? You're kidding.

@Peterbilt579 This has always bothered me about GM trucks. You literally cannot tell the difference between a 2WD & 4WD. They all sit low. Dodge & Ford for me. There is no doubt that my '13 RAM 3500 Quad-cab Laramie Cummins dually is a 4WD, the thing is a beast of a truck.

@Lee Thompson I have to disagree with the leather comment. I have a 2013 Laramie 3500 Ram, and the interior in this truck is leaps and bounds better than any Ford or GM truck. There is absolutely no comparison. Its also been mentioned in numerous reviews how much better the Ram interior is than its competition.

I agree since I just bought a regular cab v8 4x4 chevy version for 27k out the door, and mine had more options than this truck like a V8, heavy duty trailering package, power convenience group, locking rear diff, and skid plate package. I noticed that no one ever pays sticker for these trucks though they are always marked down between 1500-7000 depending on the month you buy. mine was stickered at 34k but after the rebates it was at 27k I told the salesman if I could pay 27k out the door (meaning tax and registration included) I'd buy it.

@NICKOO I know, right? I recall when this combo max'd out at no more than $22K. If THIS is $36K, I don't even want to know what a balls-out crew cab V8 stickers for. (Do you even get a tinted back glass for this price?)

MSRP on the base truck starts just over $26k plus destination. Right now there is a $1500 rebate, which after destination would put you at $25,700. Even in pickup trucks, dealerships don't have that kind of markup. In a base truck, it probably has $1000 in markup and another $500 in holdback, so if you work out a great deal this time of year, you could get into a base truck for around $24,500, if they would give up everything on a brand new truck that just came out (which they wouldn't unless it gets them to a new bonus level from the factory)

If you can wait till the end of the model year when they are whoring them out with big money on the hood, you could probably get into a base truck for close to $22,000 though

@Daniel Arnold I'll never understand why people buy a regular cab truck. The extra space of an extended cab or crew cab is so valuable to me. I'm 6'5" though, so its kind of a no brainer. I will say one thing, which is a fact. GM trucks in regular cab form have absolutely horrible leg room for us tall folk, the cabs are so tight compared to a Ford or Dodge, especially Dodge. I swear, Dodge's regular cab is twice as big as a GM's. I don't know what it is, but the guys over at GM must be some small little dudes.

@mlivshiz This isn't the base truck. The base Sierra is $26k plus destination. It is definitely overpriced though. GM just raised the price of all their trucks $1500-$2000 just so they could slap a $1500 in rebates on the hood year round.

The base Chevy is $500 cheaper than the base GMC just because of brand image and the sheet metal looks nicer (subjectively).

@LUVFORDGT40 But 30k then is 38k now. You guys need to consider inflation once and awhile. And this truck is far safer, quieter and equipped with things that didn't exist then. And will certainly get better fuel economy. And this isn't the cheapest 4x4 4.3 you can get from GM. You can go 5-6k cheaper and get the important parts.

@Kyle Wiseman I know the regular cab 2WD Hemi Rams are quick, but they are not 5.7 sec quick. High 6 sec range is probably more accurate, if not low 7's. My G37S is a 5.3 sec car, and no Hemi Ram can run with it, I guarantee it.

@RESgw Since when is 7.6 seconds to 60 fast? I don't know, probably since, cars were invented? And, especially for a....TRUCK?!

You know, I bought a brand new '96 Impala SS with the LT1 motor back in the day. It had 260HP & probably around 330LB FT, in stock form went 0-60 in 7.1 sec. and 14.9-15.1 in the 1/4. It was a quick car at the time, and I still consider it a quick car. 7.6 seconds for a V6 full size 4WD truck is very quick. You apparently live in a fantasy land.

@RESgw I am sorry, but are full of it. Just because it does not use the SAE-J2807 guidelines does not mean it can't safely tow that amount. I hardly see non Toyota's breaking in 2 when towing the max amount (The Tundra with it's nice overly flexible frame is more apt to break actually). THis is just another cry from a Toyota lover about their brands actual deficiencies. And besides, you are trying to compare a Tacoma Midsize to a full-size Siearra which by the nature of the beast will have a larger and more robust frame that will allow it to handle more cargo with higher towing capability. Also, have you actually priced out a new Tacoma 4x4 lately? Let's just say that you would NOT be saving that much compared to this truck.......

@dr_mario_05 But was it a '13 or '14? The 14's are the new body style, and any time they make major changes, they usually don't offer much in the way of rebates, and the prices usually go up a few grand. Personally, I'd rather pay the extra cash for a GMC/Chevy than buy a sub-par truck like Ram or Ford, or anything foreign. My family has only owned GMC/Chevy trucks and GM cars, and they've been very reliable. Hell, I even have a 25 year old GMC regular cab stepside Z71. It runs just as well as my 2009 Tahoe does. I actually like it a lot more than my Tahoe.

If you like data, riddle me this: why arent they using sae j2807 tow ratings? Without this clear set of measurement criteria, the buyer is in the dark. The only reason they would not shout their tow ratings and tout that the numbers are sae j2807 compliant is because the real number is lower... Probably much lower.

OK Stew, a few things. First of all, your outrage is almost entirely due to RESgw bringing up Toyota. If he hadn't, I'd bet real money you never would have posted. So don't play the "this is just another Toyota-lover" card when you are playing the polar opposite, which is equally worthless. Second, cite some sources of the Tundra's notoriously flexible frame actually breaking. You like to demand proof from others, so offer it yourself. Third, you're right, comparing a midsize to a full size for work duty is not relevant and the Tacoma is severely overpriced for an old, thirsty, less capable vehicle. You'd be nuts to pay anywhere near MSRP for one. But you do get another set of doors and a backseat, whatever that's worth.

I love this statement from stew. Every one bashes the c-channel frame Toyota uses, yet Ford's SuperDuty's and class 8 trucks (big rigs) use c-channel frames. They are designed to flex. It is harder to break a flexible frame than one that will not flex. Ford is also looking at using a c-channel on their next F-150 to save weight and keep strength. Stay ignorant Stew!

@RESgw you really think ANY manufacturer is going to inflate their tow ratings to a dangerous level? they won't, that would be a nightmare and the lawyers wouldn't allow it, plain and simple........... Why don't they? Don't we have enough government regs already?

Oh, since you are out being a forum vigilante, why do i never see you getting onto the Toyota lovers? like I saw LoCo in the Tundra thread say some very nasty things towards Ford owners. Aren't your skills needed there to? You are letting your bias shine through my friend or should i say BD....... you can say "oh but that is a Toyota thread", guess what, this isn't........

@Emajor75 @Stew @RESgw You have seen the video comparing the fullsize trucks from 09 right? Where the Tundra flexed so much it was NOT stable and looked like it was going to break? Maybe breaking is overstating, it isn't the rusty Tacoma afterall, but the Tundra's frame is simply inferior to the competition.

Let me make sure I understand this correctly, trucks that are built to tow, Super Duty and true HD trucks, are less stable because thy have a c-frame. Hmmm.....you would think the engineers would know better and make it fully boxed. Hope the other automakers know what they are doing when they switch more of their trucks to c-frame to save weight to meet CAFE standards and still keep their capability.

Yes, if you're towing north of 30k pounds regularly, you will want a c-channel frame. But for the ordinary Joe towing at max 10k pounds, fully boxed is the only way to go. It adds stability and a more stable driving experience. And yes, when the Super Duty debuted in '99, c-channel frames were ok. But when the Tundra debuted in 2007, not so much on 1/2 ton.